Banning something does not always fix the problem of its use. Per the article, there’s a sizable sporting contingent with competitions being common. If there’s money and fun in it, it doesn’t go away just because the government says you can’t do it anymore.
The article also mentions lots of local bans, and that the practice remains popular regardless. Motorcyclists still get cut by the lines, sometimes fatally, but there isn’t any formal data collection to categorize the lines as a cause of death.
The article is talking about a local ban, pushing for it, and talking about other local bans.
It has been banned nationwide for decades. States do not have the authority to ban it. Cities do have authority, but the article isn’t about cities and it would be redundant anyway.
So, overall, it’s a political piece, pushing an entity that doesn’t have the authority to ban the thing into banning something that has already been banned by a higher (on this case) authority for decades.
And yes, plenty of people still do it. Even outside of Rio (but it’s way more common there). A serious article would talk a lot more about the police enforcing the ban, but then the author did notice that this just won’t happen in Rio, for several practical reasons. So, why all the space pushing for something that is already there?
The point of the article seems to be for raising awareness I guess? I dunno I’m not from Brazil but I found it to be an interesting article.
imo it’s perfectly fine to push for local action if federal-level bans have not been as effective as they need to be. While just writing the same piece of paper saying “you can’t do this” by the city won’t do anything, one can draw attention to the issue within the context of resource and enforcement allocation. I won’t speak to the bigger picture as I have no idea what that looks like for Brazilian locales.
Edit: though I guess you’re right that the article doesn’t really address these facets of the issue. I think it doesn’t properly go into ways the problem can be further addressed, including more proactive ones vs just ramping up enforcement.
https://apnews.com/article/brazil-kite-fighting-danger-bill-cutting-lines-c88d815e5c7b13028287ada709f4f5d9
THE OCHO
What is this talking about? Cutting lines have been banned for decades already.
Banning something does not always fix the problem of its use. Per the article, there’s a sizable sporting contingent with competitions being common. If there’s money and fun in it, it doesn’t go away just because the government says you can’t do it anymore.
The article also mentions lots of local bans, and that the practice remains popular regardless. Motorcyclists still get cut by the lines, sometimes fatally, but there isn’t any formal data collection to categorize the lines as a cause of death.
The article is talking about a local ban, pushing for it, and talking about other local bans.
It has been banned nationwide for decades. States do not have the authority to ban it. Cities do have authority, but the article isn’t about cities and it would be redundant anyway.
So, overall, it’s a political piece, pushing an entity that doesn’t have the authority to ban the thing into banning something that has already been banned by a higher (on this case) authority for decades.
And yes, plenty of people still do it. Even outside of Rio (but it’s way more common there). A serious article would talk a lot more about the police enforcing the ban, but then the author did notice that this just won’t happen in Rio, for several practical reasons. So, why all the space pushing for something that is already there?
The point of the article seems to be for raising awareness I guess? I dunno I’m not from Brazil but I found it to be an interesting article.
imo it’s perfectly fine to push for local action if federal-level bans have not been as effective as they need to be. While just writing the same piece of paper saying “you can’t do this” by the city won’t do anything, one can draw attention to the issue within the context of resource and enforcement allocation. I won’t speak to the bigger picture as I have no idea what that looks like for Brazilian locales.
Edit: though I guess you’re right that the article doesn’t really address these facets of the issue. I think it doesn’t properly go into ways the problem can be further addressed, including more proactive ones vs just ramping up enforcement.